© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
NY-14-010
Energy Master Planning Towards
Net-Zero Energy Communities/Campuses
Alexander M. Zhivov, PhD
Michael Case, PhD
Richard Liesen, PhD
Member ASHRAE
Associate Member ASHRAE
Member ASHRAE
Jacques Kimman, PhD
ABSTRACT
The influence of increasing oil prices, the effects of
climate change, and the desire to become independent of
fossil fuel imports have stimulated many countries and their
communities to set ambitious goals to reduce energy use and
to increase the relative amount of energy derived from
renewable energy sources. The most ambitious goal is to
become net-zero relative to fossil fuels or to employ the
concept of the energy neutral community/campus. Essentially, both terms denote an energy configuration in which
the amount of fossil fuel-based energy used over the course
of a year is equal to the amount of energy derived from
renewable energy sources that is exported from the community/campus to a power or thermal grid for external users’
consumption. Under ideal circumstances, the community
consumes no fossil fuel-based energy, only energy generated from renewable sources; this would require the availability of long-term thermal and power storage systems. The
achievement of such energy goals in economical and physically realistic ways would require new, unconventional
approaches with respect to organization, implementation,
funding, and technical decisions. The technical approach
involves the emphasis on energy conservation, implementation of energy efficiency measures, use of waste energy
streams, reduction of fossil fuel-based energy (if needed),
and/or complementation or replacement of fossil fuel-based
energy with energy derived from renewable sources. This
paper explores approaches used by some of the most innovative International Energy Agency (IEA) countries to
develop an ideal road map and transition process to reach
net-zero or near net-zero energy targets; analyzes best practices in different countries to provide the best examples of
Wendy Broers
net-zero applications across the globe; and, based on an
analysis of solutions using front-running methods and technologies, makes recommendations for energy master planning towards net-zero communities and campuses.
INTRODUCTION
In recognition of the fact that 40% of end-energy
consumption is caused by the built environment, many countries around the world are setting increasingly stringent energy
targets for new construction and building renovation projects
to combat climate change, reduce energy-related costs, and
improve energy security. In Europe, the main legislative instrument for improving energy performance is the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), which was introduced
in 2002 and recast in 2010 (Directive 2010/31/Eu). Overall EU
policy and goals include reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
by 20%, generation of 20% of end-use energy from renewables, and a 20% drop in primary energy use by 2020. By that
time, all new buildings constructed in Europe will be nearly
zero energy buildings. During the same time period, the existing building stock will also have received continuous attention.
New energy standards for new construction and major renovation projects have been introduced and applied to thousands of
projects around the world (e.g., the Passiv Haus in Germany or
the Swiss Minergie). Many countries have successfully
demonstrated net-zero energy buildings.
In the United States, federal government agencies are
required by law to eliminate fossil fuel use in new and renovated facilities by 2030 and to reduce overall facility energy
usage by 30% by 2015 (EISA 2007). New buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations are required to reduce
consumption of fossil-fuel-generated energy, both off- and
Alexander M. Zhivov and Michael Case are program managers and Richard Liesen is a senior research engineer at the Energy Branch of
the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL), Champaign, IL.
Jacques Kimman is a professor in Renewable Energy at Zuyd University and Wendy Broers is a researcher at the Research Institute for the
Built Environment of Tomorrow (RiBuilT), Zuyd University, Heerlen, Netherlands.
114
© 2014 ASHRAE
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
on-site by 55% in 2010, 80% by 2020, and 100% by 2030.
These reductions are relative to energy consumption by similar buildings in fiscal year 2003, as measured by Commercial
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) or Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) data from the
Energy Information Agency.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPAct 2005) requires that
federal facilities be built to achieve at least a 30% energy
savings over the 2004 International Energy Code or ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2004, as appropriate, and that energy efficient
designs must be life-cycle cost effective. The U.S. Army has
a policy goal to achieve nine net-zero energy installations by
2020 and 25 by 2030.
Currently, most international research and policy energyrelated efforts in the built environment focus on renewable
energy sources and energy efficiency in single buildings. Organizations that have made first efforts to evaluate and analyze
international experiences on planning and implementation of
low-energy communities include the IEA ECBCS Annex 51
(Jank 2012); the German funded project EnEff Stadt (a
comprehensive approach to urban areas with local and district
heating networks) (Jank 2010); the World Bank Energy Sector
Management Assistance Program (ESMAP 2012), Energy
efficient cities initiative (ESMAP 2012); and the Clinton
Climate Initiative C40 program (C40CITIES 2011). The U.S.
Army is pioneering a Net-Zero Installations program, for
selected installations, which goes beyond zero energy and
includes zero waste and zero water initiatives (ASA [IE&E]
2012).
First experiences in the development of net-zero energy
communities have revealed not only challenges, but also
significant opportunities supporting net-zero energy community concepts including increased budgets for investments
derived from energy savings, increased comfort and quality of
life, and local production that boosts local economies. Experience with the first energy-neutral town in the world (Güssing, Austria) showed that a transition to a 100% renewable
energy supply (Güssing 2011) can triple tax incomes and thus
boost the local economy within 15 years.
In community-wide energy planning, it is important to
consider the integration of supply and demand, which leads to
optimized solutions. The objective is to apply principles of a
holistic approach to community energy planning and to provide the necessary methods and instruments to master planners, decision makers, and stakeholders.
According to the approach of transition-management
(Loorbach 2007; Roorda et al. 2011; Rotmans and Loorbach
2009a; Rotmans and Loorbach 2009b; Drift 2010), it is important to set and define a realistic long-term target and to develop
a road map to achieve it (Figure 1). As soon as the ideal road
map based on the experiences of the early innovators is developed, one can analyze the bottlenecks that must be overcome.
This bottleneck analysis with the relevant stakeholders forms
a solid basis for the optimal way to exchange knowledge and
learning experiences. Once bottlenecks are identified, one can
ASHRAE Transactions
begin to find possible solutions from the database of the best
practices. Instead of “reinventing the wheel” or using inefficient guidebooks, stakeholders will be open to learn possible
solutions from relevant case studies. Stakeholders may also be
more willing to accept the feasibility of solutions that have
worked elsewhere or at least to adapt the solutions to their own
boundary conditions.
Transition to a net-zero community requires that a wide
range of technical, economical, architectural, financial, legal,
and behavioral requirements be met. Although these requirements are interconnected, efforts to meet apparently competing requirements may lead to contradictory measures, unless
they are considered holistically. Therefore, it is critical to
make a coordinated, interdisciplinary effort in the transition to
a net-zero energy community. This effort, which requires the
support and commitment of all stakeholders, should be based
on a vision of a future state of the community.
One of the best examples of transition-management was
shown in the process of putting a man on the moon. The political vision was first communicated by President Kennedy. That
commitment was made without knowing what was necessary
to achieve the goal. Many technical and organizational problems had to be overcome, and the process had to be carefully
guided and coordinated over time. The process to reach netzero energy communities requires a similar approach. The City
of Stockholm’s (2010) Vision 2030, which projects how it will
achieve sustainability, focuses on development and management of the unique regional assets (e.g., land use, housing,
environment, conservation of natural resources, energy generation and distribution in sparsely populated areas and archipelagos, social perspective). A similar vision has been developed
for the province of Limburg in the Netherlands for 2050
(RiBuilt 2011).
Energy master planning is a complex process that
includes cultural, organizational, technical, legal, and financial
aspects. This paper explores approaches used by some of the
most innovative IEA countries to develop an ideal road map
and transition process to reach net-zero or near net-zero energy
Figure 1 Transition-management designing a road map
towards a vision.
115
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
targets for communities; it also analyzes best practices in
different countries to provide examples of net-zero applications across the globe and also to show how different boundary
conditions in different countries influence the results of netzero energy communities/campuses’ energy master planning
processes. (Underwood, et al. 2010; Zhivov et al. 2010; Annex
51 – Subtask A 2011; Annex 51 – Subtask B 2012; Church and
Webster 2011; Boutaud et al. 2012; Rosa 2011; Strasser 2011;
Eicker and Herrmann 2010; Zinko 2011; Broers 2010).
GOALS, BOUNDARIES, AND ROAD MAPS
Transition requires a disciplined planning and implementation process. This section discusses the definitions of
goals and objectives, the identification of system boundaries,
and the creation of a road map for implementation.
Goals and Boundaries
First, it is important to clearly define long- and shortterm energy goals, project boundaries, as well as important
limitations and other priorities, e.g., energy security
requirements, water availability and conservation goals.
Long-term energy goals can be expressed as the reduction
by a desired percentage of site or source energy against a
baseline in a given year or the achievement of a net-zero
site/source energy community within a given time frame.
There is often confusion between site and source energy in
the definition of net-zero energy community, and this
difference defines technical approaches used to achieve
this status.
When the goal is to minimize community site energy,
the emphasis is made on energy efficiency of systems
located inside community boundaries; the amount of thermal or electrical energy supplied to the community is
treated equally without any consideration of inefficiency of
electricity generation or distribution losses in thermal and
power networks. Such an approach may result in preferences for such technologies that consume electricity for
heating and cooling, such as electrical heating, electrical
cooling, or ground-coupled heat pumps. Given the inefficiency of power generation, such an approach will result in
increased fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
When the source energy or fossil fuel-based energy is
considered as a minimization parameter, energy efficiency
of the community systems may become of less importance.
Communities connected to hydropower stations or to
nuclear reactors will become fossil fuel neutral without any
effort given to improvement of community energy systems.
However, when electricity provided to the community is
primarily based on fossil fuel, which is the case for most
communities connected to large power grids, the goal of
net-zero fossil fuel is more challenging in that it requires
improvements in the efficiency of the community energy
system and reduced energy waste in the power generation
and distribution systems.
116
The scope of energy minimization effort can include
residential, commercial, and public buildings; communitybased infrastructure; industrial energy users; communityowned and transit transportation; agriculture and other
energy-consuming users; or any combination of those. When
defining the scope, it is important to understand which energy
users the community can control. The most common net-zero
definition of energy target includes source-based energy
targets, community building stock, industrial processes, and
community-based infrastructure; such targets sometimes
extend to community-owned private and public vehicles.
The terms net-zero fossil fuel or energy neutral community/campus describe energy configurations in which the
amount of fossil fuel-based energy used within community
boundaries over the course of a year is equal to the amount of
energy from renewable energy sources that is exported from
the community to a power or thermal grid for external users’
consumption. Under ideal circumstances, the community
consumes no fossil fuel-based energy, only energy from
renewable sources. Such a configuration would require the
availability of long-term thermal and power storage systems.
A community can have fixed boundaries defined either
by physical limitations (e.g., an island-based community) or
political or administrative boundaries. For example, a military
installation or university campus may be a contiguous area or
may be comprised of separate areas. Such community boundaries define its real estate, but may also suggest the possibility
for interface with other communities via electrical or thermal
(district heating/cooling) networks. An analysis of community boundaries may also reveal how communities can best
meet their energy needs (e.g., by purchasing power, hot water,
steam, chilled water, or other utilities from networks, and/or
by capturing waste heat from processes). The same analysis
can determine the feasibility of exporting power, heat, and
cooling energy from cogeneration to other buildings within
the community.
After defining the community energy goal, it is important to connect that goal to the existing community’s core
values, which may include enhancing energy security and reliability, improving social cohesion, creating a healthy environment, and promoting local employment. Community leaders,
decision makers, and local residents/end users and businesses
can help to define these core area values and connect them
with the planned community development.
Long-term goals should be transitioned into mediumterm goals (milestones) and short-term projects, which must
have tangible results. It is important to recognize that many
decision makers (e.g., university presidents, military installation commanders, elected officials) have limited-term assignments or duties and will more likely commit to projects that
can be realized during their tenure. Furthermore, short-term
projects satisfy the short-term interest of the private sector. It
is important to get commitment from both decision makers
and the private sector since they play key roles in achieving the
ASHRAE Transactions
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
long-term goal. The main restriction is that 100% of the shortterm projects fit on the road map towards the long-term goals.
In the case of the city of Tilburg, the coordinating party,
which included all stakeholders, has defined the city’s long
term goal as becoming climate neutral by 2045 with the following phased GHG reduction: 5% by 2012, 30% by 2030,
50% by 2030, and 100% by 2045. Three scenarios with different levels of ambition (Figure 2) have been developed. All
anticipated efforts with respect to energy savings and the
implementation of renewable energy were added as a function
of time. As soon the curves of energy use and renewable
energy production cross, one reaches energy neutrality. With
the current projects described in the climate program, Tillburg
will be able to achieve energy savings of 8% in the built environment and small and medium enterprises and contribute
2.7% to the sustainable energy production. In the most ambitious scenario, this point will be reached in 2040 on a city level
(Scupad Congress 2008) or by 2030 without accounting for
transportation.
Backcasting and Forecasting
The transition process is described in terms of the definition and implementation of a road map to net-zero energy
communities. As soon as the long-term goal is set, one can
apply backcasting and forecasting techniques to define the
process leading towards energy neutrality (Figure 3). Backcasting denotes the process of defining milestones and determining the necessary steps to reach the final goal. Forecasting
refers to planning projects to meet milestones defined through
the backcasting process: setting project requirements and optimizing and designing projects and sets of projects in a holistic
way that is geared to meeting each milestone. The feasibility
of the projects can be learned from the best practices and the
frontrunners.
Backcasting starts with defining desirable future goals
and then works backwards to identify policies and programs
that will connect the future to the present. Backcasting
answers the fundamental question: “If we want to attain a
certain goal, what actions must be taken to get there?” Back-
Figure 2 Several scenarios of different ambition for the city of Tilburg to reach energy neutrality. (Scupad Congress 2008).
Figure 3 Forecasting: formulate concrete actions from core area values and test them with the long-term values. Backcasting:
formulate concrete actions from the long-term goals.
ASHRAE Transactions
117
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
casting and forecasting approach the challenge of discussing
the future from opposite directions. Using backcasting,
concrete actions in the short term can be formulated from the
long-term goals. For instance, a goal of an energy neutral built
environment in 2050 could be supported by requiring that all
new houses built after 2015 (for instance) be energy neutral.
Forecasting is the process of predicting the future based
on current trend analysis. For example, using forecasting, one
learns from the frontrunners about how to achieve energy
neutral houses and how to determine what measures are
needed to achieve energy neutral houses. Backcasting and
forecasting processes are both necessary to determine the transition path and to make the road map as concrete as possible.
Backcasting and forecasting can also be used for monitoring
the transition process to the long-term goals.
Complementary Goals (Spin-Offs, Co-Benefits)
Different innovative net-zero energy projects around the
world have shown that energy efficient projects will be more
successful if they can be linked to other key issues, which are
of economic, social (quality of life), health and environmental
character. In the United States, one can profit from regional
credits. These “spin-off” effects are usually not taken into
account when making a business case for an energy efficient
urban development. When the spin-off effects are taken into
account and valued, the whole effort will become more feasible and easier to motivate. However, a complication often
arises from the fact that co-benefits arise from different
departments and/or disciplines.
For military campuses in particular, but also in the
future for local communities, energy security becomes an
increasingly important spin-off (Army Senior Energy
Council 2009). In a business case, it is hard to quantify the
value of this spin-off; however, if one begins to consider the
effects of black-outs (e.g., losing data, losing defense
shields), the cost advantages of becoming net-zero become
more apparent.
Driving Factors for Innovation
Essentially, the reduction of energy use is not as much
the problem as it is the solution for making the net-zero
project/program financially feasible. However, too often
one only considers conventional figures of energy use.
Energy efficient buildings need smaller and less expensive
mechanical and energy systems. Since these systems were
already in the budget, reducing their size and cost makes
more money available to invest in building energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources. This
process works best when energy efficiency is seen as a challenge and not as just a difficult requirement. In developing
requests for proposals one should not prescribe exact solutions, but leave room for contractors to innovate and create
their own solutions. They can use innovation and energy
efficiency as their selling point.
118
Innovative market leaders can influence other market
parties to become more innovative as well. Different market
players working together in new coalitions learn from each
other and from market leaders about different technologies and
how to organize the process. Community leaders can make
progress by organizing competition between innovative businesses, and/or by awarding bonuses for every energy efficient
project they complete. While innovation seems expensive at
first, an approach that integrates insulation, multi-functional
systems, and low energy appliances can dramatically reduce
investments in the conventional infrastructure.
ROAD MAPS
As in the example of Tilburg (Figure 2), many innovators use different road map scenarios with different levels of
ambition. Road maps predict possible energy savings and
describe energy generation measures that can bring community to an energy neutral state in a certain year. When all the
strategic decisions are made and backcasting and forecasting
have been applied, one can then start to design road maps.
However, before beginning to implement the road map, one
must consider the bottlenecks that must be overcome and how
to steer the process to overcome them.
DEALING WITH BOTTLENECKS
An analysis of Annex 51 case studies has identified ten
categories of bottlenecks, all of which are related to key issues
that should be addressed to make the transition to energy efficient communities possible:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Vision and targets
Process and organization
Support and involvement
Skills and know-how
Technical concepts
Monitoring
Tools and methods
Financing
Legal issues
Spin-offs, co-benefits.
Bottlenecks most commonly occur in the areas of
finance, design, procurement, quality control, and collaboration between different trades; they are often characterized by
short-term thinking, separation of implementation and operation, lack of incentives to achieve energy goals (including a
lack of negative consequences for energy inefficiency),
segmentation of organizations and working methods by
sectors, lack of coordination between different projects
executed within the same community, etc. Figure 4 shows the
results of analysis of typical bottlenecks conducted by
members of the IEA ECBCS Annex 51 based on their practical
experiences and case studies using the “logical framework
approach” (Europeaid 2004).
ASHRAE Transactions
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
Figure 4 Bottleneck analysis of transition processes. This problem tree must be read from the bottom to the top: The
bottlenecks at the bottom lead to the bottlenecks above.
By using this method, the real underlying problems can
be identified. The bottleneck analysis gives insight into the
causal relationships between the main problem and subproblems. By using the reverse value of the bottlenecks in the
problem tree, a solution tree is designed to reach the ideal situation. The problem tree is used to build up the solution tree.
Every clustered bottleneck can be transformed into a solution
if you know the underlying problem. Also the solutions
mentioned in the case studies are used to make the solution
tree. Solutions for bottlenecks that hinder the path to net-zero
communities can be summarized as:
•
•
•
Develop goals and ambitions and describe them in a policy document(s). Use benchmarking where possible to
ensure feasibility of goals.
Design the road map/transition-management plan:
define and visualize the net-zero community, its space
and area; define milestones (backcasting) and specific
steps/projects (forecasting based on best practices).
Organize a strong team to coordinate the road map.
Bundle economic results/develop business model and
spin-offs. Develop business plans. Select contracts
ASHRAE Transactions
•
•
•
•
•
based on price and quality for the whole life of the system. Obtain strong commitment from stakeholders by
showing spin-offs.
Develop different scenarios—consider “out of the box”
solutions. Analyze these scenarios technically and economically.
Select the best energy concept. Determine the energy
use and energy use reduction with this scenario. Analyze the impact of the implementation selected scenario
on the achievement of energy goals by the whole community. Select the right energy system/technical solution for the concept implementation.
Plan the implementation, meter and monitor the results,
and apply a steering mechanism that allows for appropriate iteration(s) based on quantified results.
Ensure implementation. Develop a strong implementation/execution program with well-defined technical
specifications and a contractual framework that allows
for achieving ambitious goals.
Involve users and encourage their participation and
behavior, resulting in quick successes.
119
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
STEERING THE TRANSITION PROCESS
Many projects succeed or fail on the basis of whether
they have included the right stakeholders and whether they can
adjust to changing conditions. Over the course of a long transition, the stakeholders, priorities, energy costs, technology,
and many other factors are likely to change. In an ideal collective process, all stakeholders will be represented in a transition
arena. The goal of this arena is to realize an innovative and
ambitious perspective for the future. Each stakeholder brings
the perspective of their own organization, including goals and
existing short-term initiatives. They should be empowered to
speak for their organizations, make decisions, and to bring
vision, strategy, and action together. The participants form a
small and deep support group that fully understands the transitional strategy and that can steer it in later stages.
Although some believe that the transition arena
approach is ideal, analysis of front-runner projects has shown
that this is difficult to realize in practice. It may be the case that
different steering models will be most effective in different
phases of the transition process. Analysis of front-runner projects has identified six steering procedures:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Government driven
Private sector driven
End users driven
Public private partnership
Participation model
Transition model
A steering model shows the stakeholders that are
involved and identifies the mutual relations between the stakeholders. Identification of the steering procedure that is most
suitable for a project or for a situation depends on many
factors, like the position of involved parties, the phase of the
development, and the diversity of interests. It is important for
a municipality to identify its degree of influence with respect
to the other stakeholders. In many cases, the municipality is
not the primary development party, but rather sets the direction and the conditions of the development. The steering
procedures can be used to introduce the other stakeholders to
this direction and conditions.
To give more insight into smart steering, six steering
models have been identified (Figure 5). At some points, the
steering procedures partly overlap because in some situations
more than one steering procedure can be used. Also, in reality,
mixtures of these steering procedures will occur.
Since energy efficient development projects will run for
a longer time, the situation will change during the project and
other stakeholders will be involved. It is probable that, with
these changes, steering procedures also will change. Organizations can use the steering procedures to reflect on their
current organization and use them smartly while realizing
their targets.
120
Figure 5 Steering models.
THE INTEGRATED ENERGY PLANNING PROCESS
Development of the transition process to low-energy or
net-zero energy community requires close attention. Drawing
from the experience of many studies conducted by the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and the IEA,
a best practices process can be extracted for creating integrated energy plans. Figure 6 shows this process.
Decision makers can develop a standardized process for
application to the future development of other energy efficient
communities. This standardized process should include:
•
•
Steps to follow throughout all phases: Determine the
steps and the route that should be followed to actually
realize an energy efficient community. Make a clear definition of ambitions and determine what should be translated into policy documents, what should be monitored,
etc. These steps should be documented as a part of the
policy.
A definition of roles, tasks, and responsibilities of organization(s) and the people involved in the process: Who
is responsible for what?
ASHRAE Transactions
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
Figure 6 Integrated planning process.
•
A definition of the “rules of the game”: Net-zero community development is a kind of game. But often there
are no clear rules. Define a standard set of rules.
•
Begin the process by building a team/network of intrinsically motivated people. Creating a group of selected participants increases the chance of getting to a common
ambition and will. However, there is still a good chance
that some participants will need to be convinced to support the process. Be sure to follow the process of developing an energy efficient community. Assign a coordinator
for the whole process. The coordinator is solely responsible for the realization of the integral and horizontal process. This person should be under the command of a high
ranked official, with sufficient authority to organize this
process. The coordinator must have certain competencies
that enable him to organize the integral process. He must
have insight in different areas of expertise and must be
able to bring different trades together. He must be able to
work on a broad, strategic basis and be capable to make
decisions so that not everything need be passed to a
higher board level. Note that the appointment of a single
responsible person for the process does not mean that the
appointee will know everything about the project. The
knowledge about certain subjects and about the project
should be widely shared. If a situation occurs in which
this project leader will leave the organization, other people will have his knowledge and will be able to replace
him. The responsibility should also be shared between
different departments. Regular communication between
these departments is vital to discuss ongoing projects,
ASHRAE Transactions
future plans, the role of energy efficiency and sustainability in these projects, etc. The core of energy efficient
community development is to understand the energy efficient community in all its facets. To be able to create this,
it is essential to involve all kinds of expertise and all kinds
of perspectives. Co-workers of the organizations should
be involved, as should all stakeholders, whose input and
consultation is important from the first stages of the
development.
•
In a best case scenario, the process will establish a joint
will, or commitment, that includes all involved stakeholders. This commitment will allow the community to
accommodate new developments as they occur, and to
jointly formulate integral goals, which must be attractive
to all stakeholders.
•
Development of an integral and widely supported community vision starts with a horizontal embedding in the
organization. Simply put, all departments work together.
This prevents fragmented planning and makes it possible,
for example, to bring mobility plans and ecological plans
together to answer questions such as: “Where do they fit
well together, where are problems, and how should we
solve them?” Another important advantage of this integral
approach is that it anchors the organization. Working in
this networked community starts with asking departments
what they can contribute to the target projects. People
should physically work together on themes or areas, but
should learn to judge their contributions not on the results
achieved by their own department, but on what their
department contributes to joint objectives.
121
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
•
•
•
•
•
•
122
A safe and open environment should be created to stimulate people to trust each other. Trust makes it possible
for all participants to share their ideas and perspectives,
and gives room to all participants to “score.” It must be
clear to the participants that the decisions made in common might not always fit in their individual views or
interests. Where disagreements occur, the decision makers on opposite sides should clearly explain the reasons
that influence their decisions. Focusing on the residents
and users in the area favors an integrated approach and
alignment with the demands of future users of the area.
A safe and open environment creates room for new roles
and new partnerships. New partnerships and new divisions of roles can invite creative collaborations between
disciplines and actors. Parties work together and make
each other stronger instead of reacting and maintaining
conflicts. Fostering connections creates a strong group
that can create and maintain strong ambitions and
involve other persons in realizing community goals
(example St. Johann, Austria [Strasser 2011] and Aarhus, Denmark [Rosa 2011]).
Scope and Time Frame: Identify the elements and areas
that are in-scope and out-of-scope for the study, as well
as the planning horizon in years. Are all areas of the
community being considered in energy calculations?
Are there residents that the community does not have
very much influence over? Will the study plan extend to
the community boundary or beyond? What is the baseline year and are there data for it? What period will be
covered? If the time period is too short, there will not be
enough time to implement the plan; if it is too long, it
may not be believable. Twenty-five years is a fairly
common horizon for an integrated plan, although intermediate goals may be added.
Framing Goals: It is very important to establish key
goals before creating the base case or coming up with
alternatives, For example: (1) decrease energy usage by
40%, (2) reduce fossil-based energy usage by 100%
(i.e., net-zero), or (3) reduce water usage by 30%. The
goals are used to compare the base case and alternatives.
Baseline: A recent snapshot in time (e.g., for selected
representative 12-month period) for which all utility
costs and energy uses are documented. These energy
data are critical to calibrate framing goals and progress
in energy use throughout the study period.
Base Case: Frequently, the most difficult part of doing
an analysis, the importance of establishing the base case
and projected energy usage over the study period, cannot be overemphasized. The base case includes current
energy flows (electricity, fuels, hot water or steam, cold
water, etc.) and projected changes already planned and
funded. Alternatives considering portfolios of building
energy efficiency measures (EEMs), distribution, and
generation measures will be compared against the base
case.
•
•
•
•
Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs: Improving efficiency is almost always less expensive than changes to
distribution or supply systems. Thus we consider measures such as insulation, lighting, low flow fixtures,
before adding expensive photovoltaics or other energy
generation measures.
Distribution and Supply: Many communities began with
centralized electrical and (usually steam) heating plants,
then slowly converted to hot (and sometimes cold) water
distribution systems or completely decentralized systems that use natural gas or oil as a fuel and commercial
power from the grid. Because of maintenance issues,
steam systems are often not as economically viable as
new or recapitalized systems, compared to modern
cogeneration electrical power/heat/cooling plants or
even as completely decentralized systems. However, a
renewed emphasis on energy savings traced back to the
source fuel may show that modern district systems are
the preferred way to meet policy goals economically.
(Typical electrical generation, transmission, and distribution systems waste up to 70% of the source fuel.)
Renewable Energy: Supply solutions such as solar photovoltaics, solar thermal, wind energy, biomass (wood
chips, etc.), biogas, or synthetic gas need to be considered as part of the mix during distribution and supply
optimization. They are almost always more expensive
than efficiency improvements or cogeneration using natural gas as a fuel, but there may be other policy goals
driving their use (e.g., net-zero fossil fuel or energy
security).
Integrated Plan: The final integrated plan is produced by
comparing the base case and alternatives using the metrics defined as part of the framing goals. A sensitivity
analysis should be conducted using the alternatives and
such risk factors as price volatility (What happens if natural gas prices double?), availability (Is there a domestic
supply?), and maintenance costs (e.g., relative risks of
decentralized versus centralized equipment). The integrated plan contains a phased implementation strategy
over the study period that shows investment costs (public and/or private), predicted energy reductions, and
return on investment.
FINANCING AND LEGISLATION
Solving the problems of financing should start by scanning the financial feasibility of the development as a whole. A
change in thinking is necessary. Do not only focus on the
initial investments, which will be quite high, but take the
whole life cycle of the development into account, including
such elements as distribution and storage of energy and the
costs and benefits that result from consideration of the wide
range of the “Triple P” (People, Planet, and Profit). Make clear
what the costs and benefits (assurance of energy prices, energy
security, more comfort, etc.) are for the different stakeholders
involved in the development. Do this in an early stage of the
ASHRAE Transactions
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
development. Creating value will and should become an
important starting point. These kinds of calculations demand
long-term thinking in terms of longer recovery time investments, which might also attract other investors.
Performing feasibility studies and making business
cases will involve the participation of new market players who
should be chosen through a formal offer, or “tender,” in which
project implementation and further operation and maintenance are taken into account. The tender shall be based on
quality, not just on low pricing.
Creating new partnerships and ownerships opens the
opportunities for new partners. Partners can be involved in
schemes like energy performance contracting, power
purchase agreements, and lease constructions.
In these kind of financing schemes, different approaches
should be considered including phasing projects, sharing
risks, and combining private and public funds.
Solutions to legislation and financial problems can come
from unconventional parties being involved in funding projects, e.g., investment in building’s energy efficiency can be
transferred to tenants through increased rent. (Lower energy
bills will make this transition to tenants cost neutral.)
The anxiety of market parties can be mitigated by
making the risks and uncertainties explicit and by sharing
risks. Bring in expertise to parties involved to minimize the
perceived risks.
Monitoring Process Results
Monitoring the process is an essential step in the process
(Figure 7). Monitoring starts with the willingness to learn, to
share these learning moments, and to change. All participants
should be aware that regular monitoring is essential to realize
end goals. Without monitoring, the process devolves into
wishful thinking such that no intermediate steering is possible.
Monitoring should take place along every step of the process,
from beginning till the end. Monitoring denotes not only an
Figure 7 The importance of monitoring: during the
implementation, one must apply backcasting and
forecasting to analyze whether it is still feasible
to reach the long-term targets and/or whether
additional measures are necessary.
ASHRAE Transactions
analysis of the numeric information, but also a careful documentation and review of the transition process itself to analyze
what went well, and what problems or circumstances arose
that indicated that improvements were needed. Monitoring
includes watching the progress, but also (perhaps more importantly) learning from mistakes. The results of monitoring can
then be used to make changes in current and future projects, or
if necessary, to redefine the transition path. For example, in
Freiburg, Germany, the city’s objective is to move away from
nuclear energy and towards the use of renewable energy
sources. The data shown in Figure 8 show how monitoring
short-term results can help to achieve long-term goals.
For example, the boundary conditions can change as a
function of time. Storage systems become important at the
stage of a 20% renewable energy supply. Distribution grids
will be favorable with respect to flexibility and the implementation of storage systems in future. By using smart grids,
energy management can be optimized and the exchange with
the main grid can be minimized.
Knowledge Management (Training)
Attention to knowledge management is essential, on
both internal and external levels. The involved persons
(contractors or builders) should have the appropriate knowledge to do their job. One should organize workshops and training sessions for all relevant persons throughout the whole
process to increase their knowledge. This process should use
existing networks of several similar projects to foster knowledge exchange, to avoid “reinventing the wheel.”
Cooperation and Rapid Changing Technologies
The problem with the involvement of multiple companies is not always easily resolved. One single product does not
solve the integral problem and it is difficult to estimate its
contribution to the whole. An integral approach is always preferable, but as discussed above, is not necessarily an easy route
when the participants are historical competitors. An immediate solution would be to make one single company responsible
for the result.
Figure 8 CO2 emissions in Freiburg, Germany (planning
and reality) (IEA 2013).
123
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
Since technology is changing at a rapid pace, it is likely
that new concepts that are useful for the community will be
developed during the lifespan of long-term projects. Therefore
it is advisable to keep the possibility for new concepts open.
Make the project’s targets and vision clear, but also predetermine what techniques to use at project’s outset.
Summary of Recommendations
The International Energy Agency common recommendations can be summarized as follows:
A. Smart Control:
a. Utilize personal ambitions and effort.
b. Appoint a process coordinator.
c. Assemble a strong project team.
B. Inspiring Vision and Targets:
a. Visualize the future energy efficient community.
b. Set ambitious targets.
c. Lay down targets in policy documents.
C. New Coalitions:
a. Create new forms of cooperation.
b. Involve end-users in the decision making
process.
c. Share knowledge.
D. Clear Analysis:
a. Develop energy analysis of the area/community.
b. Determine the energy demand after implementation of energy conservation measures.
c. Analyze energy conservation potential.
d. Select a suitable energy system.
E. Realistic Plans:
a. Develop an integral business plan.
b. Take the operation phase into account.
c. Build powerful financial coalition.
F. Decisive Implementation, Execution, and Operation:
a. Utilize innovation skills of companies.
b. Assure quality of energy systems.
c. Monitor progress and results.
d. Encourage energy efficient behavior.
TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND SCENARIOS
OF ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR A NET-ZERO ENERGY
COMMUNITY
Community energy planning and energy system optimization do not require new tools, just better integration of
existing tools. In the past, central energy system designers
used hydraulic and thermal optimization tools to design the
components of the energy supply system for a combined
heating and power plant using an optimization strategy.
This strategy can be used for both heating and cooling
systems. While these tools and this approach are rarely used
by community energy planners, they illustrate an important
feature necessary in community-wide energy planning to
124
integrate supply and demand to achieve an optimized solution. The objective in applying the principles of such a
holistic approach to community energy is to provide such
necessary methods and instruments to master planners,
decision makers, and stakeholders.
Thermal energy systems consist of three major
elements: energy generation, energy distribution, and
energy demand (Güssing 2011) (Figure 9). The goal is to
find the optimum balance of these three elements for the
entire energy system, where each element is considered in
the calculation of the amount of energy delivered and lost,
in various forms, by the energy systems (Loorbach 2007).
The challenge is to assess the system’s energy needs in
terms of heating, cooling, and power generation, and then
to estimate how those needs can be met by the various
energy systems that are ultimately chosen.
Some communities have specific energy security requirements for the entire community or selected buildings
(e.g., military installations, hospital campuses, childcare
and senior citizens facilities, telecommunications and financial facilities, data centers, manufacturing enterprises
with uninterruptible processes). An important element in
energy security is energy surety, i.e., to prevent loss of
access to power and fuel sources. This common term, used
in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and Department
of Energy (DOE) communities, refers to the integration of
safety, security, reliability, and performance aspects of
energy systems. Future community growth and climate
change present a challenge to energy sufficiency of the
entire community, especially to its critical mission facilities.
Meeting these challenges requires consideration of
boundary conditions and specific requirements for equipment and energy concepts for on-site energy generation and
energy storage and distribution systems, which may
include, but not be limited to uninterruptible power supply
to mission critical facilities, and a supply of heating and
cooling energy to prevent freezing and overheating of
buildings (living quarters), steam for sterilization, and
operation needs for critical processes, including smart
power and thermal- and micro-grids.
Figure 9 Energy supply chain from primary energy to its
use inside a building.
ASHRAE Transactions
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
Optimization of community energy systems to achieve
both annual net-zero energy consumption goals and energy
security requirements will define the spectrum of energy
systems to be considered. A limitation on the type of energy
system to be selected may be whether that community can be
connected to external utility grids or whether it can import fossil
fuel. A community’s physical (isolated island location), political, or administrative boundaries, will limit its capability to
export excess power and thermal energy produced from renewable sources, which could otherwise offset fossil fuel-based
energy use. Utility grids servicing such communities that rely
only on renewable energy sources will require long-term, large
scale electrical and thermal storage. Figure 10 shows community energy supply on an installation level.
ESTABLISHING A BASELINE
An important step in community energy planning and
energy system optimization is establishment of current site
and source energy use and cost profiles and associated
greenhouse gas emissions. The baseline data need to
include information on different types of energy used, fuel
mixes, and electricity sources. Figure 11 shows an example
of primary energy use and cost for one military community.
Then, the total energy use in the community should be
broken between consumption between different users, losses
in generation, conversion, and transmission. This information
will provide a good starting point for identification of energy
wastes and inefficiencies along the chain between the energy
sources and energy use. The best sources of such information
Figure 10 Community energy supply.
Figure 11 Example of primary energy use and cost for a military community.
ASHRAE Transactions
125
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
are energy bills, metered energy logs, targeted measurements
of energy losses in distribution systems and modeling results.
The energy distribution profiles should be shown for groups of
buildings and individual buildings as well. The baseline data
described above can be used to project a base case scenario for
energy use given the availability of information on an increase
or decrease of energy use due to new construction, consolidation and demolishing processes, buildings repurposing and
change of mission, use of new and existing utility contracts,
and the dates when known contracts will expire, Any planned
and programmed measures for energy use reduction through
efficiency measures should be included in the base case
scenario. Case et al. (2013) describe the data collection and
analysis process for a base case using the U.S. Army’s Net
Zero Installations planning tool.
BUILDING LEVEL OPTIMIZATION
Communities can be comprised of either homogenous
building stock (i.e., residential areas) or a variety of building
types. Energy requirements in some of them (i.e., residential
buildings, offices, child development centers, repair and maintenance facilities) are dominated by climate control (heating,
cooling, and humidity), with smaller effects from plug-in loads.
Other buildings (e.g., hospitals, data centers, dining facilities,
laboratories) have high energy loads dominated by internal
processes and/or high ventilation requirements.
Most of these facilities may be candidates for some similar, well understood energy use reduction methods (e.g., building envelope improvement, better lighting systems designs
and technologies). In buildings with high internal loads,
however, energy use can be reduced only by altering the way
specific processes use energy efficient appliances and significant waste streams (Zhivov et al. 2006; IEA 2012; Deru et al.
2012); currently, this is rarely addressed.
Energy demand determines the amount of energy that the
energy supply and distribution system must provide. Evaluation
of a community or a cluster of buildings will reveal opportunities for energy savings and challenges for analysis and optimization. Addressing buildings as a cluster does not require a deep
evaluation of each building, but does require that individual
analyses be applied to the building cluster and that consideration be given to the possibility of integrated supply services.
The building optimization process starts with: (1) identifying typical buildings and energy systems in the community
and existing energy wastes and inefficiencies related to these
buildings and systems (IEA 2012); (2) developing load
profiles for typical base-case buildings; and (3) analyzing
suites of technologies for an ultra-low energy community to
include waste recovery and energy conserving (ultra-low
energy) and energy generation and storage technologies that
could be applied to buildings and the energy systems that
support those buildings to minimize traditional electrical and
fossil energy use (Zhivov et al. 2009; Herron et al. 2009; Deru
et al. 2009; Carpio and Soulek 2011; Liesen et al. 2012; Deru
et al. 2012).
126
Optimizing Distribution and Supply
After the life cycle cost efficiency measures have been
applied to decrease load as much as possible, analysis continues with distribution and supply systems optimization. One of
the supply scenarios may include a decentralized option for
building heating and cooling. The engineer may also identify
clusters of facilities to be supplied by a central plant or by
several smaller plants. As the user includes or excludes facilities, cluster loads and load profiles must be updated to optimize supply system architecture, which may include
reciprocal engine or gas turbine cogeneration, solar, wind, and
biomass, as well as more traditional solutions such as gas-fired
boilers and diesel engines. Different alternative distribution
systems can be considered as well.
The supply system optimization process determines the
lowest life cycle cost suite of equipment and ensures that the
demands for heat, cooling, and electric energy are satisfied
during each of the 8760 hours of the year, and that additional
user-specified constraints are also satisfied.
Integrated versus Single Component Optimization
There is a debate over whether to conserve energy
first or to simply generate energy with renewable alternatives. Figure 12 shows several theoretical paths that a
designer or master energy planner can choose and the
process for each individual building and building cluster
optimization. Point 1 represents the base case building,
which is either an existing building or a new building that
must be built to local code requirements with a given total
annual cost (the annual mortgage or financed first cost plus
the annual energy operating costs). If renewables are added
at this point, the total annual cost of the net-zero energy
building will be as shown in Point 7, using a constant cost
for a unit of photovoltaic system ($/sq ft [$/m2] of a photovoltaic [PV] panels or $/Btu [$/kWh] electricity produced).
Point 8, which is created by adding expensive renewable
technologies without reducing buildings demands first, has
the largest annual cost.
Another alternative from Point 1 is to add energy efficiency technologies at the building level, which will require
investing in these technologies (additional first cost). With
this alternative, you eventually reach Point 2 with the lowest
total annual cost. Typically you would not add renewables at
Point 2 since adding many conventional energy efficiency
technologies at this point may be more cost effective than
adding renewable generation. When Point 3 is reached, you
have achieved the same total annual cost as your existing
building or a base case building built to code (Point1), but the
building at Point 3 is now much more energy efficient and
often much more comfortable. As one continues to add
energy efficiency improvements, the building will eventually reach Point 4, where adding more EEMs will either
result in diminishing returns, or will cost more than adding
renewable generation.
ASHRAE Transactions
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
Figure 12 Building fossil fuel reduction optimization process.
For an individual building analysis, this building at
Point 4 would be Net-Zero Ready. For different types of buildings and climate locations, fossil fuel-based energy reduction
will vary (Church and Webster 2011). In buildings with low
internal energy loads, reduction of fossil fuel can be significant (50% to 75%), but in buildings with high internal loads,
lesser reductions (20% to 30%) may be achieved. This is true
even for buildings built or retrofitted to passive house requirements and that use advanced low exergy systems to satisfy
remaining heating and cooling needs. The remaining energy
requirements will be dominated by electrical power needs for
lighting, appliances, and internal processes and by domestic
hot water needs e.g., for showers. Adding renewables from
Point 4 will result in the total annual cost shown by Point 7.
The process from Point 4 to 7 is approximately at the same
slope, or cost, as the process from Point 1 to 7, but it is shown
to be more cost effective to purchase less expensive renewable
energy technology for a building with reduced energy
demands.
Alternatively, the building characterized by Point 4 can
be connected to a cogeneration plant serving either this individual building or a cluster of buildings. This will require a
smaller investment compared to the cost of decentralized boilers and chillers for single buildings and the cost of larger
renewable generation equipment (IEA 2011), but will result in
a significant fossil fuel reduction due to use of waste heat in
combination with the generation of electricity. This heat can
be used either to satisfy the heating, cooling, and domestic hot
water needs of the building cluster, or it may be exported to
another building cluster. The use of cogeneration for individual buildings and building clusters affects the optimal location
of Point 4 for each individual building. When the subject of
interest is a single building, the waste heat produced by cogeneration process can be only used for heating, cooling, and
domestic hot water needs of this building. The amount of
waste heat generated will determine the optimal level of the
building insulation and its loads. Typically, the level of insuASHRAE Transactions
lation used in new construction and retrofit project results in
small heating and cooling loads and the waste heat from
cogeneration process will compete with the heat that can be
generated using solar thermal systems. When the boundaries
of the analysis go beyond a single building, the waste heat can
be used for the building clusters under consideration, and the
decision on the level of building insulation must be made
based on a mix of buildings (new and old) and on other potential uses of waste heat.
Fossil fuel usage by the building cluster (Point 5) can be
further reduced (another 20%–25%) by connecting to a
combined heat and power (CHP) plant. When a CHP uses
biomass or biogas as a fuel, the connected building(s) become
net-zero fossil fuel. Typically, at Point 5, buildings do not
require additional thermal energy from renewable energy
source, but may require additional electrical power. After
Point 5, adding solar- or wind-generated electrical power
becomes a cost-effective supply option. At this point, by definition, the building cluster is net-zero ready. Path 1-2-3-4-56 is the lowest cost path for building improvement leading
toward net-zero fossil fuel-based energy strategy.
When this process has been completed for each building,
the results from all of the individual buildings are integrated
and summed into annual load duration curves. The load duration curve shows the cumulative duration for different loads in
the system over a full year. These curves are derived from
hourly load data to show all possible variations to the system,
and are generated from the hourly building energy simulation
program. Due to the diversity of energy use in buildings
comprising the cluster (community), the peak of the resulting
load curve is much smaller than the sum of peaks of individual
buildings so that the needed generation and back-up capacity
is much smaller.
127
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has described how ambitious energy goals—
to achieve low-energy or net-zero energy communities—can
be successfully achieved in terms of transition management by
using a combination of best practices in an integrated energy
master planning process, based on a long-term vision. Important steps in achieving these goals include bringing all major
stakeholders together, establishing framing goals, developing
road maps, and managing the transition process play an important part. This paper also summarized a number of lessons
learned from experience with front-running methods and technologies that can help to overcome many bottlenecks. For
example, technical concepts should be established based on
agreed upon framing goals and a baseline, followed by development of the base case and alternative scenarios. A successful
approach must include smart steering, monitoring, knowledge
management, new ways of financing, and cooperation among
stakeholders. It is recommended that close attention be paid to
knowledge management (training) issues in terms of exercising smart control; inspiring vision and targets; forming new
coalitions; performing clear analyses; making realistic plans;
and ensuring decisive implementation, execution, and operation.
Although the development of scenarios and optimizing
those scenarios and testing them against framing goals can be
a laborious effort that requires simulation and optimization on
the building, supply, and distribution levels, integrated tools
currently being developed can be used to reduce the level of
effort and streamline the optimization process. In the final
analysis, an integrated and holistic approach, if properly
implemented, will show that energy efficiency is not a problem to be overcome, but a solution that will make communitylevel energy projects financially feasible.
REFERENCES
Army Senior Energy Council. 2009. Army Energy Security
Implementation Strategy. Washington, DC: Army Senior
Energy Council and the Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnerships,
http://www.asaie.army.mil/Public/Partnerships/doc
/AESIS_13JAN09_Approved%204-03-09.pdf
ASA (IE&E). 2012. Army vision for Net Zero. Net Zero is a
force multiplier. Web page. Accessed 17 December 2012.
Washington, DC: ASA(IE&E), www.asaie.army.mil.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy & Environment (ASA [IE&E]).Boutaud,
B., A. Koch, and P. Girault. 2012. European Institute for
Energy Research, Karlsruhe, Germany: Case study for
France: Nantes. STC Evaluation Study 2011–2012. http:/
/www.nantesmetropole.fr.
Briggs, R.S., R.G. Lucas, and T. Taylor. 2003. Climate Classification for Building Energy Codes and Standards: Part 2–
Zone Definitions, Maps and Comparisons, Technical and
Symposium Papers. ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago,
IL, January, 2003. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
128
Broers, W. 2010. Zuyd University: Case Study for the
Netherlands: Tilburg. STC Evaluation study 2010.
www.duurzamegebiedsontwikkeling.nl.
C40CITIES Climate Leadership Group. 2011. Global Leadership on Climate Change. Clinton Initiative. Web page.
Accessed December 17, 2012, www.c40cities.org/.
Carpio, D.M., and A.B. Soulek. 2011. Energy Enhancement
and Sustainability Study of Five Buildings. Washington,
DC: Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers
(HQUSACE), http://mrsi.usace.army.mil/sustain/Documents/2011_EISA_Study.pdf.
Case, M., R J. Liesen, A. Zhivov, M. Swanson, B. Barnes, and
J. Stinson. 2013. A computational framework for low
energy community analysis and optimization. ASHRAE
Transactions. NY-13-XX. 119(1).
Church, K., and J. Webster. 2011. National Resources Canada: Case Study for Canada: Pr. George. STC Evaluation
Study. http://www.princegeorge.ca/Pages/default.aspx.
City of Stockholm. 2010. Vision 2030: A Guide to the Future.
Stockholm, Sweden: Executive Office, www.stockholm.se.
Underwood, D.M., A. Zhivov, S. Duncan, A. Woody, C.
Björk, S. Richter, D.Neth, D. Pinault, and R. Jank. Working towards Net Zero Energy at Fort Irwin, CA. ERDC/
CERL TR-10-24. Champaign, IL: ERDC/CERL.
Deru, M., D. Herron, A. Zhivov, D. Fisher, and V, Smith.
2009. Energy Design Guidelines for Army Dining Facilities. ASHRAE Transactions. LO-09-095. 115(2).
Deru, M., R. Langner, A. Zhivov. R. Liesen, D. Herron, and V.
Smith. 2012. Extremely Low-Energy Design for Army
Buildings: Dining Facility. ASHRAE Transactions. CH12-009. 118(2).
Directive 2010/31/Eu of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 May 2010 on The Energy Performance of
Buildings (Recast), Official Journal of the European
Union. L 153/13, www.energy.eu/directives/2010-31EU.pdf.
DOE. 2013. 10 CFR Part 433. Rules and Regulations. EERE–
2011–BT–STD–0055. Federal Register 78(131).
Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (Drift), Erasmus University (2010). Urban Transition Management Manual.
Eicker, U., and M. Herrmann. 2010. Hochschule fur Technik
Stuttgart: Case Study for Germany: Ludwigsburg. STC
Evaluation Study 2010.
ESMAP. 2012. Energy Efficient City Initiative (EECI). Web
page. Accessed December 17, 2012, www.esmap.org/
EECI. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program
(ESMAP).
Europeaid. 2004. Project Cycle Management Guidelines
(European Commission). http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/
multimedia/publications/publications/manuals-tools/
t101_en.htm.
Garforth, P., O. Baumann, and G. Fleischhammer. 2013. Integrated Energy Master Plans: Local Initiatives with Global
Impact. ASHRAE Transactions. NY-13-XX. 119(1).
ASHRAE Transactions
© 2014 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 120, Part 1. For personal use only.
Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
Güssing, Borough of. 2011. Case study: The European Centre
for Renewable Energy EEE in Güssing as an Example of
How Synergies Can Be Realized. Web page. Accessed 17
December 2012, http://www.guessing.co.at/.
Herron, D., A. Zhivov, and M. Deru. 2009. Energy design
guides for Army barracks. ASHRAE Transactions. LO09-093. 115(2).
IEA, Energy Conservation in Buildings and Community Systems (ECBCS). Annex 46. International Energy Agency
Energy and Process Assessment Protocol.
IEA. 2013. IEA-EBC-Annex 51, Case Studies and Guidelines
for Energy Efficient Communities. A Guidebook on Successful Urban Energy Planning. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
IEA. Annex 51–Subtask A. April 14, 2011. Description of the
State-of-the-Art of Energy Efficient Projects on the Scale
of Neighbourhood. Discussion Paper.
IEA. Annex 51–Subtask B. January 22, 2012. Case Studies on
Energy Planning and Implementation Strategies for
Neighbourhoods, Districts and Municipal Areas. Draft 5.
Jank, Reinhard. (Operating Agent). 2012. Annex 51: Energy
Efficient Communities: Case Studies and Strategic Guidance for Urban Decision Makers. International Energy
Agency (IEA), Energy Conservation in Buildings and
Community Systems (ECBCS), www.ecbcs.org/annexes/
annex51.htm.
Jank, Reinhard. 2010. Volkswohnung Karlsruhe GmbH: Fallstudie Energieeffiziente Stadt Ludwigsburg.
Kerschberger, A. 2013. From US Army Installation to Zero
Energy Community: The B&O Bad Aibling Park Looks
to the Future. ASHRAE Transactions. NY-13-XX, 119(1).
Langner, R. M. Deru, A. Zhivov, R. Liesen and D. Herron.
2012. Extremely low-energy design for army buildings:
tactical equipment maintenance facility. ASHRAE Transactions. CH-12-010 118(2).
Liesen, R., P. Ellis, A. Zhivov, and D. Herron. 2012. Extremely low energy design for army buildings: barracks.
ASHRAE Transactions. CH-12-008 118(2).
Loorbach, D. 2007. Transition Management. Utrecht: International books.
RiBuilt, Zuyd University. (2011). Limburg in 2050,
www.RiBuilT.eu.
Richter, S., and T. Hamacher. May 2003. URBS: A Model for
Investigations on Future Urban Energy Systems. Düsseldorf, Germany: PowerGen Europe, Conference Proceedings, International Conference and Fair, CCD.
Roorda, C., M. Buiter (Urgenda), J. Rotmans (Drift), M.
Bentvelzen (Drift), N. Tillie (TUDelft), R. Keeton (International New Town Institute). 2011. Urban development:
The State of the Sustainable Art, an International Benchmark of Sustainable Urban Development.
ASHRAE Transactions
Rosa, A.D. June 2011. Technical University of Denmark:
Case Study for Denmark: Aarhus. STC Evaluation Study
2011. www.naturstyrelsen.dk, www.co2030.dk
Rotmans, J., and D. Loorbach. 2009a. Complexity and Transition Management.
Rotmans, J., and D. Loorbach. 2009b. The Practice of Transition Management: Examples and Lessons from Four Distinct Cases.
Scupad Congress. May 15–18 2008. Planning for the Carbon
Neutral World: Challenges for Cities and Regions, Vera
Rovers, BuildDesk, Benelux.
Strasser, H. 2011. SIR Austria: Case Study for Austria: St.
Johann. STC Evaluation Study 2011.
Swanson, M., B. Barnes, R. Liesen, M. Case, and A. Zhivov.
2013. Community-Scale Energy Supply and Distribution
Optimization Using Mixed Integer Linear Programming.
ASHRAE Transactions. NY-13-XX. 119(1).
Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). 2012. Energy and
Water Conservation Design Guide (for Sustainment,
Restoration and Modernization (SRM) and MILCON
Projects). Washington, DC: National Institute of
Building Sciences, http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs
/usace_ewcdr_execsummary.pdf.
Zhivov, A., D. Herron, R. Liesen, K. Budde, S. Richter, S.
Ochse, S. Schad, L. Fiedler P. Steitz, V. Guthrie, S. Turner,
and N. Shepard. 2013 Energy Optimization for Fort Carson Combat Aviation Brigade Complex. ASHRAE Transactions. NY-13-XX 119(1).
Zhivov, A., R. Liesen, S. Richter, R. Jank, and F. Holcomb.
2010. Towards a Net Zero Building Cluster Energy Systems Analysis for a Brigade Combat Team Complex.
Paper Number: ES2010-90487. Proceedings of ASME
2010 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability. ES2010. May 17–22, 2010 Phoenix, Arizona.
Zhivov, A., D. Herron, and M. Deru. 2009. Achieving Energy
Efficiency and Improving Indoor Air Quality in Army
Maintenance Facilities. ASHRAE Transactions. LO-09094 115(2).
Zhivov, A., R. Liesen, S. Richter, R. Jank, D. Underwood, D.
Neth, A. Woody, C. Bjork, and S. Duncan. 2012. Net Zero
Building Cluster Energy Systems Analysis for US Army
Installations. ASHRAE Transactions. CH-12-007 118(2).
Zhivov, A.M., Mike C.J. Lin, A. Woody, W.M. Worek, M.J.
Chimack, and R.A. Miller. September 2006. Energy and
Process Optimization and Benchmarking of Army Industrial Processes. ERDC/CERL TR-06-25. Champaign, IL:
ERDC-CERL, http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search
/asset/1002547.
Zinko, H. 2011. Linkoping University, Sweden: Case Study
for Sweden: Stockholm. STC Evaluation Study 2011.
129